Drag each label to the correct location on the table.
match the attributes to the quadratic functions.
vertex: (-3,-1)
axis of symmetry: x = 1
minimum value: 8
vertex: (1,-4)
axis of symmetry: x = 6
minimum value: -4
vertex: (6,8)
maximum value: -1
axis of symmetry: x = -3
categories
f(x) = x? - 12x + 44
f(x) = x2 - 2-3
f(x) = -x2 - 6x - 10

i think its a and d

step-by-step explanation:

i think it's eleven too, don't woosh me here, but according to the "experts" it's 2.

the proof starts from the peano postulates, which define the natural

numbers n. n is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

  p1.   1 is in n.

  p2.   if x is in n, then its "successor" x' is in n.

  p3.   there is no x such that x' = 1.

  p4.   if x isn't 1, then there is a y in n such that y' = x.

  p5.   if s is a subset of n, 1 is in s, and the implication

      (x in s => x' in s) holds, then s = n.

then you have to define addition recursively:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 1, then define a + b = a'

      (using p1 and p2). if b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in n

      (using p4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

then you have to define 2:

  def:   2 = 1'

2 is in n by p1, p2, and the definition of 2.

theorem:   1 + 1 = 2

proof: use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

      then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

note: there is an alternate formulation of the peano postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in p1, p3, p4, and p5. then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 0, then define a + b = a.

      if b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in n, and define

      a + b = (a + c)'.

you also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. then the proof of the

theorem above is a little different:

proof: use the second part of the definition of + first:

      1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

      now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

      parentheses:   1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

yes, i heard the "tea" with james charles and a few other beauty gurus. i believe charles is in the wrong and i believe tati the most. tati didn't lie about james charles but may have exaggerated because he never sexually assaulted anyone. jeffery star is a really good friend to all and out anyone that needs it, until you mess with one of his "sisters"! james will never rise over jeffery or tati, he's way to sensitive and dramatic to rise about them. i think all three of them will make up and be friends again because they always get over it.

i hope this with your